Dog Control Amendment Bill

There is no doubt that there was a need for focusing on the main aims of the 1996 legislation and that some of those did need updating. There is no doubt that it was appropriate that they centre on owner responsibility, better nationwide enforcement, and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. I am slightly sorry that we are not taking this bill clause by clause. It is relevant that we talk on the title, and the title itself is appropriate in terms of the bill being a dog control amendment bill, but it could also fittingly be called the “Labour Government Let’s Wait 4 Years Until There is A Crisis Bill”. After all, this particular legislation has been languishing for over 4 years, and it was not until there was a spate of dog attacks in south Auckland and around the country, and finally the awful situation with the dog that mauled Carolina Anderson, that the Labour Government was jolted out of its state of languishing and finally did something regarding this bill. The National Party certainly does support the main thrust of this bill, but we are particularly concerned about universal microchipping.

Another title that perhaps this bill could have had is the “Labour Government (We’ll Build Fences as Long as the Great Wall of China) Bill”. There is no doubt that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, was all for fencing off every farm, every hamlet, every personal home in the country to, in his view, secure the population from dangerous dogs. Fortunately he came to his senses, and that part of the bill has been wiped.

But perhaps the third title suggestion could be the “Labour Government Central Control (Make Another Million Dollar Database and Microchip Them All) Bill”. Because, unfortunately, that is what the Labour Government is planning to do. Even though the Local Government and Environment Committee did not recommend universal microchipping, for a whole variety of reasons, for some unfathomable reason the Minister, Chris Carter, decided to override the select committee that heard all the submissions, that cooperated well, that collaborated well, and prescribed, in a true socialist Labour Government way, universal microchipping for all dogs in New Zealand, even though it is very costly, not only in money terms but also probably on the dogs themselves.

The history of dog control issues is almost as long as the last decade—in fact, as I said in the second reading debate, it goes back to 1991. The other issue, which was the major issue then, was breed-related, with regard to the supposed impact of dangerous dogs. That was heightened after 1997, after the death of Mr Dinsdale and the supposed belief that pit bull terriers had been part of that death, and resulted in the select committee being set up that put together Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the original Dog Control Bill in 1999.

As I said in the second reading, I think it is important to go through the history of the bill, as we consider the parts under the title of Dog Control Bill, because the issue really was then one of control. The issue was whether it was to be a direct control. If we are looking at the title, that could be. The aspect of universal microchipping has now been advanced. But the issues we were concerned about in the select committee were to modify and to make good the bill as it was in the committee, and that met with most of our support.

New Zealand First has taken a position on microchipping that is unrelated to the Minister’s stance, because when we looked at the cost of the microchipping suggestions that were made in this bill, we considered they were too costly, for a few thousand dogs at the very most. The establishment of a national data register, and what that meant in terms of technology, was a costly exercise, and in this case would be met by either the taxpayer or the ratepayer. We will come to that as we go through that part of the bill. New Zealand First has found that this is basically a Dog Control Bill. Microchipping is not a control issue. Perhaps that should have been added to the title of the bill, because strictly speaking that comes under registration. This bill could have been called the “Dog Control Amendment and Registration Bill”, and that would have met the terms not only of this debate, but also of the bill more strictly as it will be in its final form. On behalf of New Zealand First, and like others on the committee, we arrived here with a bill that generally enjoys consensus. The title is one that we agree with, and we are pleased to support the bill further.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 1A Commencement